This is yet another accusation
levelled against Islam - that its Shari'ah is
barbaric. The word ‘barbaric' was originally used by
the Greeks for ‘foreigners' to express the strange
sound of their language. Later, this word was used to
describe people who are ‘uncivilised, primitive,
rough, uneducated, brutal, cruel, blood-thirsty and
merciless' as opposed to being ‘advanced, civilised,
cultured, humane and compassionate.'

It is true to say that not a single synonym of
‘barbaric' is applicable to the Islamic penal system.
On the contrary, humane values lie at the heart of the
criminal justice system in Islam and all the antonyms
of barbaric are truly descriptive of the Shari'ah.

The object of punishment is not to relentlessly hunt
down wrongdoers for retribution, but to see that
peace, right and order are restored and this could be
illustrated by the fact that the Islamic penal system
almost wholly ‘‘lacks police, prisons and professional
executioners."

The hudud may appear to be harsh in the eyes of
those who have been swayed by false sentiments, but
human experience shows that if a punishment was to act
as ‘deterrent', then it has to be severe and
exemplary.

Life cannot be safe if the habitual criminals are left
unfinished and it is better to be severe to one and
save many than to be unnecessarily lenient and thereby
destroy many and put the lives of millions of others
at risk.

The deterrent punishments in Islam on the surface
appears to be harsh, but it is only meant for "such
incorrigible offenders who stand as real obstacles in
the healthy growth of human society" and "in fact, it
was a vital instrument in the dynamics of building a
new social order" and it radically abolished and
amended the pre-Islamic systems where inhumanity and
vengeance was the order of the day.

Prisons in Western societies are miserably failing its
people and apart from being living hell, prison
destabilises people and often has "a destructive
effect on the personality."

Home Office statistics in Britain shows that longer
sentences do not prevent reconviction and in fact 50
per cent males and 35 per cent females get convicted
within two years after coming out of prison.

Thus, it is not true to say that prison is the more
appropriate punishment for theft rather than the
amputating of hand and if reducing the crime rate is
the objective, then certainly the choice will be the
Divine law – you compare the crime statistics of Saudi
Arabia and America and judge which one is better.

Severe

Sentences may appear to be severe in Islam, ‘‘but
still more strict and severe are the ‘procedures' laid
down to be observed before a man may be convicted" and
Rasulullah Sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said:
"Avoid the hudud as much as possible. Wherever
there is even a mild chance, release him, for
releasing by an error on the part of the judge is
better than to punish anyone with error." (At-Tirmizi
and Ibn Majah)

Islam also teaches that "no bearer of a burden
shall bear the burden of another" (Surah
Al-Anam:164), it guarantees the accused immunity from
‘malicious prosecution' due to strict rules of
evidence, it strongly advocates the equality of all
before the law and in the realm of qisas
(equitable retribution) it teaches that "let him not exceed in the
matter of taking life for he is aided."(Surah Al-Isra:33)

Such is the humanity taught by Islam 1400 years ago!

Very Few

We have dealt with the humane values that Islam
stresses even at the time of sentencing. For example,
in the case of flogging, several conditions and
restrictions are imposed ranging from the type of
stick to who inflicts the punishment to where it
should hit!

In actual practice, "very few had punishments (had
been) prescribed," according to Rudolph Peters in
The Islamisation of Criminal Law (1994, Germany).

Therefore, "Islam is a package deal which Muslims
are bound to follow and if the progressive modern
cultured societies can ‘tolerate' mass killing
indiscriminately with atomic bombs, then certainly
they can tolerate the amputation of the hands,
flogging or stoning to death for certain ‘heinous'
crimes i.e. sacrifice of a few individuals for the
sake of the society as a whole," so said Mohamed
Wassel in The Islamic Law- Its Application as It
was Revealed in the Quran and its Adaptability to
Cultural Change.

Outdated?

Yet another criticism against Islamic law is that it
is ‘outdated'.

Outdated means ‘old fashioned, obsolete and
unfashionable' and it is applicable to something which
is ‘out of date', and to raise this objection against
Islamic law doesn't make sense.

The Shari'ah is a living law today, as it was
1400 years ago, among the Muslim masses across the
globe, though it may not be implemented in its
totality.

I think the critic is not trying to pinpoint any
particular ‘weaknesses' of Islamic law but is simply
saying that the Shari'ah is too old and
therefore we should forsake it for the latest modern
trend.

There is nothing such as ‘modernism' in Islam as Islam
is forever modern, progressive and dynamic because
human trends show that what is modern today becomes
obsolete tomorrow.

The Shari'ah emanates from Allah the All Wise
who, being well aware of human conditions, has
revealed a law (Surah Al-Ma'idah: 48) that is
perfectly universal and applicable to all nations for
all times.

It is not a system of law to be judged and evaluated
as ‘good' or ‘bad' in accordance with the changing
views of the population or the policies of the state
and therefore the Shari'ah is radically
different from the ordinary law in which the
legislative authority is free to explain and comment
on the law introduced by it which it can freely amend,
cancel or withdraw.

Permanence

If the aim of the law is to control unacceptable human
behaviour and to reduce the rate of crime, then there
has to be an element of permanence so that it may be
easily recognised by the citizens who after all, are
the ones who are bound to follow the law (English law
teaches that ‘ignorance of law is no defence').

But man-made laws change all the time according to
changing ‘social attitudes' so much so that actions
that were once regarded as ‘detestable' and ‘heinous'
crimes (such as abortion, suicide, prostitution ,
homosexuality and adultery in England) are now
regarded as ‘legal' and normal under the same laws!

Such is the nature of human laws which cannot fully
comprehend human nature or predict the future and is
constantly changing so much so that if I buy a law
textbook today, it may not be valid for tomorrow.

Islamic law, therefore, does not recognise the liberty
of (human) legislation, for it would be incompatible
with the ethical control of human actions and,
ultimately, of society.

That is why man-made laws have miserably failed and
the rate of crime has reached epidemic proportion.

Islamic law is at once static as well as dynamic as a
result of which it has attracted people of all nations
over the last 1400 years and yet kept the social
fabric of Islam compact and secure through the ages
and this law shall be as responsive to the urges of a
progressive society in the present and the future as
it has been in the past.

So it's about time that the fallible Occidental homo
sapiens change their ‘fashionable' attitudes of
contempt for Islamic law so that they may be assured
of their spiritual and material well being and create
an ordered crime free society based on justice.